DETAILED ACTION
In response to remarks filed 08/07/2026
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are currently pending;
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are currently amended;
Claim 15 was previously presented;
Claims 1-17 are rejected hereinafter.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2014/0219728) in view of Vise et al. (US 2006/0226406).
With regards to claim 1, Brown discloses a modular wall panel section, the section comprising: two or more pillars (11); at least one wall panel (12) comprising at least a first surrounding element (23) and a second surrounding element (23) wherein the first surrounding element is configured to be secured to the one of the two or more pillars and the second surrounding element is configured to be secured to the another of the two or more pillars (figure 1); and wherein the first surrounding element is secured at a first height and the second surrounding element is secured at a second height to allow the staggered interlocking of the one wall panel to another wall panel along one of the two or more pillars (figure 4).Brown discloses the invention substantially as clamed. However, Brown is silent about wherein at least one of the surrounding elements is secured to the wall panel at an offset to the longitudinal axis. Vise et al. teaches a similar modular wall panel section including surrounding elements (360, 370) is secured to the wall panel at an offset to the longitudinal axis (figure 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the panel section of Brown to include surrounding element at an offset to the longitudinal axis as taught by Vise et al. since it provide a well known connector C-clamp easy to install and remove.
As to claim 2-3, Brown discloses wherein the pillars (11) are configured to be stackable vertically (figure 1; paragraph 0003); wherein the interlocking panels (12) are configured to be stackable vertically and horizontally (figure 1).
As to claim 4, Brown discloses wherein the at least one wall panel (12) may be stacked horizontally at any angle between 0 and 360 degrees with other wall panel (paragraph 0019).
As to claim 6, Brown discloses wherein the surrounding elements (23) of a first panel are offset vertically with the surrounding elements of a second adjacent panel (figures 1 and 4).
As to claim 7 and 16, Brown discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Brown is silent about wherein the section further comprising an intermediary surrounding element located along a length of the at least one wall panel and configured to be coupled to a pillar of another modular wall panel section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an intermediary surrounding element, since it has been held that mere duplication/rearrangement of the essential working part of a device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
As to claim 8, Brown discloses wherein the pillars (11) comprise a base (ground or conventionally cement is poured on the ground) and a pole (11), the base comprising a hole for receiving an elongated section of the pole and the pole configured to be coupled to the surrounding elements (figures 1-4).
As to claim 9, Brown discloses the surrounding elements (23) being unitarily with the at least one wall panel (12) (figures 1-4).
As to claim 10, Brown discloses wherein two or more of the wall panels (12) are stacked on top of one another (figure 1).
As to claim 11, Brown discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Brown is silent about wherein the at least one wall panel has a curved shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the panel to be curved, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one skilled in the art.
As to claim 12-13, Brown discloses wherein the at least one wall panel comprises reinforcing elements (figure 1 and 4; see steel panels having reinforcing ribs which are conventional in the art); and wherein the section is configured to be part of a structural retaining wall (abstract; figures 1-4).
As to claim 14, Brown discloses a modular wall panel system (10), the system comprising: two or more modular wall panel sections (figure 1), each section comprising: one or more pillars (11); at least two wall panels (12), each wall panel comprising at least a first surrounding element (23) and a second surrounding element (23) wherein the first surrounding element is configured to be secured to the one of the one or more pillars of one of the wall panel sections and the second surrounding element is configured to be secured to a pillar of another wall panel section; and wherein each of the first surrounding elements is secured at a first height and each of the second surrounding elements is secured at a second height to allow the staggered interlocking of the one of the wall panel sections to the other wall panel section along one of the two or more pillars (figures 1 and 4). However, Brown is silent about a third intermediary surrounding member secured to one of the at least two wall panels at an offset to the longitudinal axis of such one of the at least two wall panels. Vise et al. teaches a similar modular wall panel section including surrounding elements (360) and a third intermediary surrounding element (370) is secured to the wall panel at an offset to the longitudinal axis (figure 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the panel section of Brown to include surrounding element at an offset to the longitudinal axis as taught by Vise et al. since it provides a well-known connector C-clamp easy to install and remove.
As to claim 17, Brown discloses a method of installing a modular wall panel system (10) as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: securing to the ground two or more pillars (11); coupling the first surrounding element (23)of the first panel to one of the two or more pillars; coupling the second surrounding element (23) of the first panel to another of the two or more pillars (figures 1 and 4).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2014/0219728) in view of Vise et al. (US 2006/0226406) and Padden et al. (US 2011/0169384).
As to claims 5 and 15, Brown discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Brown is silent about wherein each surrounding element comprises: an opening configured as a channel to receive one of said two or more pillars, a cover configured to close the channel once the one of said two or more pillars is in place in the channel, and a lock bar configured to maintain the cover in place thereby securing the connection between the at least one wall panel and the one of said two or more pillars. Padden et al. teaches a panel (101) comprising a first and second surrounding elements (105) configured to be secured to two or more pillars (102) and wherein each surrounding element comprises: an opening configured as a channel to receive one of said two or more pillars (main portion 401 in figure 4), a cover (402) configured to close the channel once the one of said two or more pillars is in place in the channel, and a lock bar (screw or bolt 404 is equivalent to a lock bar) configured to maintain the cover in place thereby securing the connection between the at least one wall panel and the one of said two or more pillars (figures 1-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surrounding element of Brown for the surrounding element as taught by Padden et al., since it would provide panels that can be installed and removed easily.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
